Paper detail

Innocent strategies as presheaves and interactive equivalences for CCS (expanded version)

Seeking a general framework for reasoning about and comparing programming languages, we derive a new view of Milner's CCS. We construct a category E of 'plays', and a subcategory V of 'views'. We argue that presheaves on V adequately represent 'innocent' strategies, in the sense of game semantics. We equip innocent strategies with a simple notion of interaction. We then prove decomposition results for innocent strategies, and, restricting to presheaves of finite ordinals, prove that innocent strategies are a final coalgebra for a polynomial functor derived from the game. This leads to a translation of CCS with recursive equations. Finally, we propose a notion of 'interactive equivalence' for innocent strategies, which is close in spirit to Beffara's interpretation of testing equivalences in concurrency theory. In this framework, we consider analogues of fair testing and must testing. We show that must testing is strictly finer in our model than in CCS, since it avoids what we call 'spatial unfairness'. Still, it differs from fair testing, and we show that it coincides with a relaxed form of fair testing.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.